N4A Webinar_FP Immunization Integration Presentation

Report
Integration of Family Planning and
Child Immunization Services:
Leveraging Private-Public Partnerships to
Increase Impact
June 23, 2014
Presentation Outline
1) Background and Rationale for Integration
2) Existing Evidence and Key Lessons
3) Case Studies
 PSI, Mali
 MCHIP, Liberia
4) Considerations for PPPs & Discussion
2
Why Integrate?
Women &
Providers
Supportive
High Unmet
Need in PP
Period
FP &
Immunization
Integration
Importance of
Healthy Timing
& Spacing for
MCH
Up to 5
Contacts with
Mothers in First
Year
Low Use of
Postpartum
Services;
High Use of
Immunization
3
What do we mean by “Integration”?
4
High Impact Practices (HIP):
FP & Immunization Integration in “Promising” Category
Interagency Working Group:
What Have We Learned?
• Integrate during routine immunization
services
• Collect data on impact of integration on
immunization services
• Use of dedicated providers can be effective
• Systematic screening can support
integrated delivery
• Political & community support are critical
• Health system issues must be addressed
• Keep referral messages simple
• Ensure clear and effective referral systems
Endorsed by over 20 organizations
including USAID and UNFPA!
The FP &
Immunization
Integration Toolkit
houses relevant
5
resources
Experiences to date







Togo (1990s)
FHI 360: Ghana, Zambia, Rwanda
RTI: Philippines
MCHIP: Liberia
IRC: Liberia
IntraHealth: Senegal
PSI: Mali, Zambia
“Crowd sourced” interactive map on HIP
implementation on K4Health website
6
Perspectives on Immunization
7
Integration: A guiding principle in the Global Vaccine
Action Plan for the Decade of Vaccines—2010-2020
On integration, GVAP says:
“Strong immunization systems,
as part of health systems and
closely coordinated with other
primary health care delivery
programmes, are essential for
achieving immunization goals.”
8
Possible effects on immunization of
integrating services with family planning
Positive:
• Secure support for EPI by using it as platform to
serve another program
• By increasing convenience to caregivers through
“one stop shopping” increase utilization of services
and vaccination coverage
Negative:
• Deter mothers who accept EPI but not FP
• Create confusion that EPI is really FP and a
masked attempt to sterilize women or children
9
Precedent: experiences with negative
consequences
 Cameroon (early 1990s) – death threats to vaccinators; halted
immunization efforts for 2-3 years
 Philippines (early 1990s) – halt in immunization services, lingering
damage; efforts to engage Church did not succeed
 Madagascar (2004/05) – MCH Weeks with FP and tetanus toxoid for
women  confusion, distrust, ineffective campaign
 Northern Nigeria (2004-2006) – allegations that polio vaccine is
sterilizing agent  the failure of polio campaigns led to re-introduction of
polio virus to countries as distant as Indonesia; massive, multi-country
setback to Polio Eradication Initiative that lasted years
 Pakistan (2012-present) – targeted murders of >75 vaccinators and
escorts for polio campaigns due to allegations that campaigns sterilize
children and are related to spying
10
Possible strategies for engaging the
immunization community
Reduce
risks
Show
benefits
Share
experience
• Design approaches that minimize hazards. DO NOT INTEGRATE
FP and EPI DURING IMMUNIZATION MASS CAMPAIGNS.
• Design win/win approaches intended to benefit EPI and FP
• Actively measure effects on EPI using MOH EPI data
• Share data that demonstrate gains, if documented
• Engage country level immunization staff in both designing and
sharing FP/Imm experiences
• Disseminate the how-to approach so it can be replicated
11
Case Studies:
Mali & Liberia
12
Program Example #1:
PSI Mali
ate-Public Partnerships to Increase Impact
Nene Fofana
Sexual and Reproductive Health Technical Advisor
PSI/Mali
13
FP in the land of Timbuktu
CPR 9.9%
14
Child Vaccinations in Mali (DHS 2012 Preliminary)
100%
90%
80%
% of children recieved
70%
60%
50%
Urban
Rural
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
BCG
DPT 1
Polio 1
Measles
Vaccine
page 15
Public Private Partnership Actors
Private Not for
Profit
Public
Population
Services
International
(PSI NGO)
Ministry of
Health (MOH)
national level
Community
Health
Association
Board
(ASACO)
District and
Regional MOH
page 16
FP/Immunization Integration Approach
Initially piloted in the private sector then adapted and
scaled up in the public sector
Mme Kouma, PSI midwive providing
an implant during immunization day
Combined Routine immunization+
FP counseling/service provision
Interactive 20-30 minutes group
sensitization
Subsequent private/personal
counseling for interested
individuals
Once choice is made, the women
receive her method on the spot
page 17
Strong Public-Private Partnership
PSI assisted the MOH in
- Adapting the private sector
model to the public sector
- Expanding the FP portfolio
offered by community
health centers
MOH created the enabling
environment to
- Ensure service continuity
through support
supervision, QA and data
collection
- Achieve equity by reducing
methods price
Meet the needs of women in post partum
page 18
Impact Overview
In 2013 alone
Generated 529,932 CYPs
Prevented 201,749 Unintended
pregnancies
Prevented 567 maternal deaths
Over years, it helped reach more
than 500,000 women with
information on family planning
options and services
20000
18000
IUD
Implants
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2011
2012
2013
page 19
Lessons Learned
- Public-Private partnership
can contribute to health
system strengthening by
supporting country
ownership
- MOH engagement is key
for scale up and to build
in sustainability from the
start
- Private sector actors need
to embrace their coaching
role and responsibilities
Recent CPR 4%
increase is driven by
LARCs and injectable
page 20
Program Example #2:
MCHIP Liberia
21
The Integration Approach
 MOHSW + MCHIP Collaboration
(NGO-public sector partnership)
 Combined Service Provision Model: Use
of routine immunization contacts at fixed
facilities; vaccinators provided one-on-one
immunization and FP messages and referrals
for same-day FP services
 Piloted at 10 public, NGO-supported health
facilities in Bong and Lofa counties from
March-Nov 2012
 Supported by high levels in MOHSW; drive to
reduce maternal mortality in the country
22
The Service Delivery Process
 ALL women who bring infants for vaccination
received messages and referrals for FP
 Job aid to guide vaccinator communication
 Key messages designed strategically to
address barriers and enablers identified
through formative assessment

Stigma and sensitivity regarding contraceptive
use by mothers of babies who are not yet
walking
 Clients offered a leaflet to take home which
describes benefits of FP
Source: MCHIP
23
Roles
MCHIP
MOHSW
 Advocacy
 TA for M&E
 TA for strategy/
materials
development
 TA for service
provider training
and orientations
 Funding
(through USAID)
 Supportive
supervision
• Input from Health
Promotion
Division for
materials
development
• EPI & FHD teams
participated in
training,
supervision, and
assessment
• Plan for scale-up
• Built buy-in at
county/district
levels
• Shared data
County &
District
OICs &
Providers
 Participated in
orientation
 Built buy-in
among
facilities/service
providers
 Ongoing
supervision
 Participated in
training and
ongoing
supervision visits
 Direct
implementation
and oversight of
the integrated
approach
 Shared data
24
Participating Facilities
New Contraceptive Users
March-Nov 2011 v. 2012
LOFA
90%
increase
BONG
73%
increase
25
New Contraceptive users during
March-Nov 2011 and 2012 in Participating Facilities
2500
2039
2000
44%
1500
1182
983
1000
56%
500
34%
517
66%
0
Bong
BONG
Lofa
LOFA
2012 NEW FP USERS REFERRED FROM EPI
2012 NEW FP USERS NOT REFERRED FROM EPI ON SAME DAY
2011 NEW FP USERS
26
Source: MOHSW/CHT/MCHIP
Supervision Data
Immunization Findings:
March-Nov 2011 vs. March-Nov 2012
Bong : Percentage Change in Penta 1, 3 doses
administered
12%
10%
11%
10%
9%
8%
6%
5%
4%
2%
Lofa : Percentage Change in Penta 1, 3 doses administered
0%
40%
Pilot facilities
All other facilities
35%
30%
21%
20%
Penta 1
10%
Penta 3
0%
Pilot facilities
All other facilities
-6%
-10%
-11%
-20%
27
Lessons learned
 Partnership strengthened public sector capacity to
provide integrated services; activities continued
after pilot with minimal MCHIP support
 Partnership offered an opportunity to leverage
expertise and resources
 MOHSW and district/county-level buy-in and
ongoing participation facilitated eventual scale-up
of the approach
28
Considerations for
Private-Public Partnerships (PPPs)
29
Potential advantages of PPPs for
FP/Immunization Integration
 Leverage technical skills
(e.g. for program design, training, supervision, evaluation)
 Address resource constraints
(e.g. HR, commodities, space)
 Address research gaps
(e.g. impact of integration on immunization outcomes)
 Increase ownership & improve sustainability
 Address financing issues
 Maximize impact
30
Discussion questions
 From your perspective, what
are the advantages and
disadvantages of integration?
 What role can and should the
private sector play in
integrating FP and
immunization services?
 How can PPPs best support
the FP/immunization
integration agenda?
Private doctor and clinic owner in Lagos, Nigeria
(from SHOPS website)
31
Thank You!
FP/Immunization Integration Toolkit:
http://www.k4health.org/toolkits/family-planningimmunization-integration
High Impact Practices (HIP) Brief:
https://www.fphighimpactpractices.org/resources
HIP Map:
http://www.k4health.org/topics/high-impactpractices-family-planning
Working Group: [email protected]
or [email protected]
To join the Network for Africa community of practice, visit
www.shopsproject.org/network4africa or email [email protected]
32

similar documents